NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

Well, if they do, it's their revenue that gets lost.
Musicians have always used music as a means to criticise politics, the establishment, ideologies,... you name it, there's a song against it.

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?
It's their choice to do what they want and the fans choice to like just the music or also the thoughts behind it.

Keep on rocking in the free world

If it's "all about the music, man!" as so many rich musicians love to claim, they won't care whether they lose a part of their audience or not. Which is, incidentally, why only a small percentage of the total number of tracks out there dare to involve controversial political points. But hey, if it makes more people politically aware then knock out a few more!

Art has always been used in political protest. It's not always popular, and it's not always good, but when it works, man, it works.

It's nothing new, even medieval folk songs were known to moan about the inequities of serfdom and the excesses of the ruling class.

Music has always been about emotional expression, and it should come as no surprise that politics inspires great extremes of emotion.

This is the pulse, this is the sound
This is the beat of a new generation

This is the movement, this is the rhythm
This is the noise of revolution
Yeah! Yeah!

Yeah! Yeah! YEAH! YEAH!

Refused party program!!!
Refused party program!!!
Refused party program!!!
Yeah! Yeah! YEAH! YEAH!
Yeah! Yeah! YEAH! YEAH!
Yeah!

Part, perhaps. But much of the demographic of the 70s music was people protesting against the governmet and the War of the Year(tm). As it so happens, a lot of people now are doing the same thing.

And as to "Should they," I say they should. From the late 60s to the early 70s, most music was protest music. and what wasn't protest music was performed by a band that also had a protest song. If you are outraged, use the 1st ammendment to the full extent! If the Govt. doesn't like it, they can be shot dead by extremist ACLU members while trying to repeal the 1st ammendment. :sniper:
</rant>

Art at its best ALWAYS seeks to inform its audience, and it will always be slanted towards the beliefs of the artist.

At its core, that is the best of what art is.

It's nothing new, even medieval folk songs were known to moan about the inequities of serfdom and the excesses of the ruling class.

Music has always been about emotional expression, and it should come as no surprise that politics inspires great extremes of emotion.
Yes, but isnt there a feeling that these musical groups which take up politics in their lyrics are just being market-savvy and taking advantage of a widespread ill-feeling towards the US administration?

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

Yeah, it really damaged Greenday

Yes, but isnt there a feeling that these musical groups which take up politics in their lyrics are just being market-savvy and taking advantage of a widespread ill-feeling towards the US administration?

Did you pledge allegience, did you question the code?
Did you find out too late that you can't escape the flow?

I need a will to live, something worth dying for,
A force to fuel the fight, a force to feel.

This is the new order, carved with a warm-blooded sword,
Cause comforting, you live to justify the cause,
And you're wondering, with your neck on the line.
Is it justice or crime? The guillotine or the crown?

Did you reshape your will, just to fit in the fold?
Did you trade your conscience, for a place to belong?

It's just a point of view, a key to lock the chain.
Come join the circle now, we're fitting in.

We paint the walls with a, five pointed flag burning star.
It's a motion, to justify our place again.
The star is still shining, but it died long ago
And I wont let it go, and I wont let it go.

I bid you welcome, the door is open,
A gathering of, the uninvited.
I bid you welcome, the door is open,
A gathering, this is the key to break the chain.

This is the call to break down the chain.
And I wont let it go.
And I wont let it.
We paint the walls.

you dont create music with the intention of protest but you can protest in music. the rolling stones started out with protest music and they were radicals so them coming out wit ha album that has music protesting the government now isnt anything out of the ordinary. music shouldnt be used for the sole purpose of criticizing the government but for expressing urself

Yeah, it really damaged Greenday
Lol..priceless...

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

Are you just throwing this question out as a hypothetical, or are you suggesting that perhaps there should be restrictions placed on artistic expression to prevent celebrities from using their fame to help express their political views in the public arena?

I noticed several people on this forum denigrating the Rolling Stones with all sorts of insults because they expressed views that ran counter to their own. As far as I'm concerned, you either allow someone to express their political views even if they differ greatly from your own or you allow NO ONE to express their views, even if they COMPLETELY agree with your own.

Would these people have been nearly so vexed had Mick Jagger and Keith Richards written a song called, "Sweet Liberal Coward"? If not, that's a double standard in my book.

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?
They don't just risk alienating their audience - look at the Dixie Chicks. They took a swipe at Bush for the Iraq war, and consequently Clear Channel immediately removed them from all its playlists. That's 1225 radio stations the Dixie Chicks had been removed from in the US, and so a hell of a large market that they don't get to. Now that would lose revenue. Wouldn't surprise me if CC did the same with the Stones.

you name it, there's a song against it.

Is there a song against freedom of musical expression?

Yes, but isnt there a feeling that these musical groups which take up politics in their lyrics are just being market-savvy and taking advantage of a widespread ill-feeling towards the US administration?
So some of it might be economic opportunism.

But look at the context. A heavily commercialised industry with vast marketing budgets, operating in capitalist democracies. What's wrong with that? It is a natural part of the system.

Are you just throwing this question out as a hypothetical, or are you suggesting that perhaps there should be restrictions placed on artistic expression to prevent celebrities from using their fame to help express their political views in the public arena?
Celebrities have the right to their views just like everybody else, if we agree with them we cheer, if not we can mock them without mercy ;)

Are you just throwing this question out as a hypothetical, or are you suggesting that perhaps there should be restrictions placed on artistic expression to prevent celebrities from using their fame to help express their political views in the public arena?
No, of course not...i´m a libertarian and treasure freedom of speech above everything else.
I was just questioning if morally such music groups should use their notoriety to further their political agenda.

They don't just risk alienating their audience - look at the Dixie Chicks. They took a swipe at Bush for the Iraq war, and consequently Clear Channel immediately removed them from all its playlists. That's 1225 radio stations the Dixie Chicks had been removed from in the US, and so a hell of a large market that they don't get to. Now that would lose revenue. Wouldn't surprise me if CC did the same with the Stones.It's not like the Stones would have gotten a ton of radio play even if there had been no "Sweet Neo Con" to begin with. Modern Top 40 radio just will not play people over a certain age unless there's some heavy connection with a current "hot boy" or "hot girl."

I see no problem with an artist using their music for social commentary or to push their particular political view. It's their music, they'll do what they want with it. If people don't like it, they won't buy it.

That said, I will neither buy or listen to music where excessive political or social 'idealogy pushing' is present. I hate that crap and it pisses me off immensely. Even if the artist is pushing a viewpoint that is identical to my own, I still hate that crap.

music is whatever the artist makes it to be,


also, whatever the listener takes from it.




culture should not be managed by forces from above,
be those forces be gov't, music industry leeches,
or religious people. if one doesn't like some music,
don't listen to it.


if some people want nothing more than a soothing pacifier out
of their music, i've got a tape of disney tunes for you.

I think music is just one more form of expressing yourself and it surely does appeal to the masses.

It can be used as an effective medium for conveying powerful messages in a subtle manner. I really do not see any reason for NOT using music for political protest. It should be left upon people to decide what they want to listen to or what they want to discard...

No, of course not...i´m a libertarian and treasure freedom of speech above everything else.
I was just questioning if morally such music groups should use their notoriety to further their political agenda.

I don't think there's any moral imperative to steer clear of politics just because you're more famous than everyone else. After all, every single attempt to change the political opinion of the public relies on getting as much attention as possible, so every single success story in the political arena involves people who are famous, either because (in the Stones' case) they were celebrities before they got into politics, or (in the case of most activists who get their message across) they're just better than everyone else at getting attention.

Plus of course the moral angle sorta calls into question the entire existence of some acts. Public Enemy, Rage Against The Machine, Bob Dylan, Midnight Oil (I had to include at least on classic Australian act in there), just to name a few. Plus there's some entire genres of music that were founded on the theme of defying authority and preaching a political message, such as punk and rap, that wouldn't really exist today if it weren't for heavily politicized early acts helping to define the sound of those genres.

" And it's one two three what are we fighting for
Don't worry and I don't give a damn
Next stop is Vietnam
And it's Five six seven
Open up the pearl gates
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee we're all gonna die".

(Country Joe and The Fish)

This song went a long way in stopping the abomination that was the war in Vietnam.

Argue against that rednecks!

I don't think there's any moral imperative to steer clear of politics just because you're more famous than everyone else. After all, every single attempt to change the political opinion of the public relies on getting as much attention as possible, so every single success story in the political arena involves people who are famous, either because (in the Stones' case) they were celebrities before they got into politics, or (in the case of most activists who get their message across) they're just better than everyone else at getting attention.

Plus of course the moral angle sorta calls into question the entire existence of some acts. Public Enemy, Rage Against The Machine, Bob Dylan, Midnight Oil (I had to include at least on classic Australian act in there), just to name a few. Plus there's some entire genres of music that were founded on the theme of defying authority and preaching a political message, such as punk and rap, that wouldn't really exist today if it weren't for heavily politicized early acts helping to define the sound of those genres.
Yes, but isnt it true that many of the people who helped the Stones become such celebrities might resent the fact that the notoriety that they help build is now being used for purposes that many fans dont necessarily purport?
If one had to be fair, one would accept that indeed punk and rap have their roots in political protest...but punk is in fact dead and rap came of age (or sold out, if you prefer)

Sure, why not? As a DJ I use music to control the moods of people attending parties. Anyway, that's off subject. This is, as far as I know, still a free country and if you have a view, so long as it's not threatening in nature, you have every right to impose your beliefs upon others. Bands like NOFX and Flogging Molly have been doing it for years and nobody complains.

Yes, but isnt it true that many of the people who helped the Stones become such celebrities might resent the fact that the notoriety that they help build is now being used for purposes that many fans dont necessarily purport?
If one had to be fair, one would accept that indeed punk and rap have their roots in political protest...but punk is in fact dead and rap came of age (or sold out, if you prefer)


Releasing new material, regardless of whether it's political or not, always runs the risk of alienating the fans and making them feel that their favourite band has betrayed them. Bands that do something a bit more progrssive and experimental make their fans cry for being too inaccessable. Bands that do something a bit simpler and more accessable make their fans cry for being too mainstream.

And at the end of the day, that's the fans' problem. A band is not and should not be beholden to its fans unless the only thing that band cares about is maximising sales. The fans have no right to dictate what should and shouldn't be involved in the creative process, regardless of whether the potentially upsetting new direction taken by the band is one of politics, musical style, or band lineup. They don't own the band. And although the band should make a few practical decisions if it plans on earning a living off its music, I for one thing slavishly pandering to the demands of the audience is something best left to Idol contestants and the R&B genre.


Oh and punk's not dead, it's just resting its eyes! :D

Yeah, it really damaged Greenday

I am not much of a Punk/Grunge man myself, but American Idiot really showed a low I thought they didn't have up thier sleeve. I know it really killed them down here in FL, although there is Wake Me Up When September Ends, which is the only acceptible song on that album (I hate it myself, but a few of my friends like it) that I know of and even then it is made fun of.

I am surprised Metallica hasn't gone under, but they kick-A. Just about every other song is political, one way or the other. Master of Puppets and the Unforgivens (original and II) were big time political songs.

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

Not really. If artists put out an album they are usually inline with most fans. Music is the message of the counter culture. It is the best way to get out a political message that is suppressed by other media.

Look at Green Day, bush pissed them off so much they made American Idiot, their first good album (IMO) since Dookie. All the bands on Epitaph and Fat Wreckords got together to rock against Bush.

I think that the stage is a perfect place to use as a platform for political action. Some will be alienated, but no the majority.

I am not much of a Punk/Grunge man myself, but American Idiot really showed a low I thought they didn't have up thier sleeve. I know it really killed them down here in FL, although there is Wake Me Up When September Ends, which is the only acceptible song on that album (I hate it myself, but a few of my friends like it) that I know of and even then it is made fun of.


Yeah, I really didn't like American Idiot at all (though I've never liked Green Day, so big suprise there). As far as I'm concerned, you need look no further for American Idiots than the members of that band.

I am not much of a Punk/Grunge man myself, but American Idiot really showed a low I thought they didn't have up thier sleeve. I know it really killed them down here in FL, although there is Wake Me Up When September Ends, which is the only acceptible song on that album (I hate it myself, but a few of my friends like it) that I know of and even then it is made fun of.

I am surprised Metallica hasn't gone under, but they kick-A. Just about every other song is political, one way or the other. Master of Puppets and the Unforgivens (original and II) were big time political songs.

Metallica is old and outdated though. Their talent was spent 15 years ago. If I wanted to see old dudes banging their heads I'd go to the seizure center in my local nursing home.

You may not like Green Day, but there message is built for the younger crowd, to get them politically motivated, so it can't be as "veiled" as Master of Puppets or One. I've seen both bands live and I can honestly say that Green Day stands behind their album, whereas Metallica has become such a Corporate entity that they seem to have forgotten that Master of Puppets was about the "Man" controlling them. They've become the "Man".

EDIT: And stating that you aren't into Punk/Grunge puts you as "out of touch" . Grunge has been dead since 1994. Punk has lived since 1974. Huge difference in musical genres there. And Green Day (and Metallica for that matter) fall into neither.

makes no difference to me, I pick and choose my songs by...pirating :D

Metallica is old and outdated though. Their talent was spent 15 years ago. If I wanted to see old dudes banging their heads I'd go to the seizure center in my local nursing home.

You may not like Green Day, but there message is built for the younger crowd, to get them politically motivated, so it can't be as "veiled" as Master of Puppets or One. I've seen both bands live and I can honestly say that Green Day stands behind their album, whereas Metallica has become such a Corporate entity that they seem to have forgotten that Master of Puppets was about the "Man" controlling them. They've become the "Man".
So Mettalica has sold out and now chant odes to unbridled capitalism?
So, a band that made its notoriety on political protest shouldnt try to do "escapist" music or risk alienating its followers?

So Mettalica has sold out and now chant odes to unbridled capitalism?
So, a band that made its notoriety on political protest shouldnt try to do "escapist" music or risk alienating its followers?

I don't say that chant odes to unbridled capitalism. Simply that they've lost touch with their own message. How can you preach freedom from the tyranny of corporate opression then appear at a press conference with the president of the RIAA while suing Napster? Or bring a lawsuit against a French cologne company that had a product called "Metallica"?

I'm not sure what you specifically mean by "escapist" music...but really all music is escapist in a way. I mean, although you feel empowered, you are no more empowered than you were before you heard the song. So what happens now? You take action or you take the music and dream of a place where you take action.

When Rise Against calls for the kids to take over the corporate world by doing it from the inside, they aren't helping you fill out job applications. It still is escapist. The music is just the idea. What you do with it is up to you.

I'm sure very few people started protesting the music industry when Master of Puppets came out. Or Metallica wouldn't be in the position they are today. Although I'm still not sure why anyone would listen to anything after "...And Justice For All", but that's me.

I don't say that chant odes to unbridled capitalism. Simply that they've lost touch with their own message. How can you preach freedom from the tyranny of corporate opression then appear at a press conference with the president of the RIAA while suing Napster? Or bring a lawsuit against a French cologne company that had a product called "Metallica"?

I'm not sure what you specifically mean by "escapist" music...but really they should just quit and bring the US mullett population down.
Well, attacking Napster doesnt mean exactly you endorse "corporate opression" (whatever that means). It coud simply they dont take kindly to have their work going around without any kind of finantial return.
Escapist music as in escapist cinema: entertainement that doesnt convey any kind of political message and seeks only to amuse.

Well, attacking Napster doesnt mean exactly you endorse "corporate opression" (whatever that means). It coud simply they dont take kindly to have their work going around without any kind of finantial return.
Escapist music as in escapist cinema: entertainement that doesnt convey any kind of political message and seeks only to amuse.

You mean songs like "Enter Sandman" or perhaps "Where ever I May Roam"? Every band produces escapist songs...except maybe Bad Religion...but they're different.

Metallica has enough money that all the file sharing in the world would never hurt their income. After all...most of it is based on tour ticket and merch sales, not albums. They know this, but they just don't want to share.

You mean songs like "Enter Sandman" or perhaps "Where ever I May Roam"? Every band produces escapist songs...except maybe Bad Religion...but they're different.

Metallica has enough money that all the file sharing in the world would never hurt their income. After all...most of it is based on tour ticket and merch sales, not albums. They know this, but they just don't want to share.
On the matter of fille sharing i would say that they could be acting on a matter of principle...the defense of private property and all that...oh,wait, that would just go to prove their new "capitalist pigs" selves and further allienate followers, right?

Yes, but isnt it true that many of the people who helped the Stones become such celebrities might resent the fact that the notoriety that they help build is now being used for purposes that many fans dont necessarily purport?
If one had to be fair, one would accept that indeed punk and rap have their roots in political protest...but punk is in fact dead and rap came of age (or sold out, if you prefer)
Are you suggesting that artists should only do what their corporate/marketing masters want them to do? Do the Stones exist to make money for their label, or themselves? The Stones made themselves celebrities long before any of those parasitic suits got involved.

I'm an artist (non-music), and I say do and say what you want and let the chips fall where they may -- fly or crash -- what's life without risk?

Are you suggesting that artists should only do what their corporate/marketing masters want them to do? Do the Stones exist to make money for their label, or themselves? The Stones made themselves celebrities long before any of those parasitic suits got involved.

I'm an artist (non-music), and I say do and say what you want and let the chips fall where they may -- fly or crash -- what's life without risk?
No, but dont you feel artists do have a debt to their fans...i mean, they are the one who pay the lavish mansions and such(here im talking of the stones of course)...one would expect that such artists would bear in mind that not all o ftheir fans share their political beliefs...

...one would expect that such artists would bear in mind that not all o ftheir fans share their political beliefs...

They probably did, and rightly didn't care. Why should they? If you don't like it don't listen to it.

No, but dont you feel artists do have a debt to their fans...i mean, they are the one who pay the lavish mansions and such(here im talking of the stones of course)...one would expect that such artists would bear in mind that not all o ftheir fans share their political beliefs...
No, I don't. I believe artists have an obligation to express what they really feel to be the truth -- political, social, spiritual, or even just aesthetic/theoretical -- even at the risk of alienating fans and losing their careers. Otherwise, they're nothing but trained seals barking for herrings.

No, I don't. I believe artists have an obligation to express what they really feel to be the truth -- political, social, spiritual, or even just aesthetic/theoretical -- even at the risk of alienating fans and losing their careers. Otherwise, they're nothing but trained seals barking for herrings.
Yes, like Bob Dylan did, only for the general public find a few years ago that he had a stock portfolio of companies that produced war equipment.

On the matter of fille sharing i would say that they could be acting on a matter of principle...the defense of private property and all that...oh,wait, that would just go to prove their new "capitalist pigs" selves and further allienate followers, right?

Considering that they pressed their first albums themselves and they were only availablt at concerts? That does pretty much go against everything they used to say about freedom of music and all that. Which make them at the very least appear to be puppets for the master (the master being their supporting label). Exactly how much of thier songs is their private property and not owned by a corporate entity? Approxmimately 0%. It is all owned as part of the label's catalog with creative rights held by (primarily) James Hettfield and Lars Ullrich as a corporation.

Considering that they pressed their first albums themselves and they were only availablt at concerts? That does pretty much go against everything they used to say about freedom of music and all that. Which make them at the very least appear to be puppets for the master (the master being their supporting label). Exactly how much of thier songs is their private property and not owned by a corporate entity? Approxmimately 0%. It is all owned as part of the label's catalog with creative rights held by (primarily) James Hettfield and Lars Ullrich as a corporation.
Well, one should be fair and acknowledge that when they started their carrers, internet file sharing wasnt an issue...

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

Meh.

Music has been used politically for as long as there as been music.

And appropriately so.

(Or do you think National Anthems are inappropriate?)

Well, one should be fair and acknowledge that when they started their carrers, internet file sharing wasnt an issue...

Of course that would be because the internet was hardly an issue in the mid 1980's. And file sharing software was non-existent.

On the other hand, they didn't make a big deal at that time when people copied their albums to magnetic audio tapes. Or taped their live shows for bootleg purposes. They supported it. Why the change of heart?

Of course that would be because the internet was hardly an issue in the mid 1980's. And file sharing software was non-existent.

On the other hand, they didn't make a big deal at that time when people copied their albums to magnetic audio tapes. Or taped their live shows for bootleg purposes. They supported it. Why the change of heart?
I dont know, maybe because that age-old notion that you´re a revolutionary in your 20´s and a petit burgeois in your 40´s has some truth about it..

Yes, like Bob Dylan did, only for the general public find a few years ago that he had a stock portfolio of companies that produced war equipment.
I never liked Dylan all that much. And thanks for tarring all artists with the same brush. The world is full of sell-outs, liars, hypocrites, and trained seals. I suppose they have their place in society. But if the question is if artists should or should not use their art/music to express political views or promote a political agenda, then I don't see what Dylan being a two-face has to do with that. People say what they say. It's your call whether you think they're lying or telling the truth or if you don't care either way. All I ask is that artists express themselves, and if they're willing to do that at the risk of alienating their fans, then I applaud them. It's a sign (not a guaranty) of honesty.

Or are you implying that artists have no right to be anything but trained seals performing to amuse you? (That's not a challenge; I just noticed that it's possible to read that into your remarks.)

I never liked Dylan all that much. And thanks for tarring all artists with the same brush. The world is full of sell-outs, liars, hypocrites, and trained seals. I suppose they have their place in society. But if the question is if artists should or should not use their art/music to express political views or promote a political agenda, then I don't see what Dylan being a two-face has to do with that. People say what they say. It's your call whether you think they're lying or telling the truth or if you don't care either way. All I ask is that artists express themselves, and if they're willing to do that at the risk of alienating their fans, then I applaud them. It's a sign (not a guaranty) of honesty.

Or are you implying that artists have no right to be anything but trained seals performing to amuse you? (That's not a challenge; I just noticed that it's possible to read that into your remarks.)
I just had this Bob Dylan rant on cue, and had to put it edgewise
all im saying is that many artists express political views in ways that may alienate fans...and sometimes they do it in a rather demagogic fashion...

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?

I've got no problem with it. I'm a big fan of both System of a Down and Smile Empty Soul -- both of which are rather 'state of the world'/political bands.

The thing I do have a problem with is people not understanding the meaning behind the music.

OK people, ill be leaving now...but feel free to keep up the discussion.

Recently the Rolling Stones put out a new album with a track called "Sweet NeoCon", where severe criticisms are made against the Bush Administration. Do you think that music artists should use their fame and work as a platform for political action? Don´t they incur in the risk of alienating a part of their audience?
It's their choice. Music is generally better when it's not motivated entirely by profit. :p

I just had this Bob Dylan rant on cue, and had to put it edgewise
all im saying is that many artists express political views in ways that may alienate fans...and sometimes they do it in a rather demagogic fashion...
Why should they be different from everybody else? :p